I saw this abstract in the Journal of Medicinal Food on Brent Pottenger’s Twitter Feed earlier today.
Stephanie Jew; Suhad S. AbuMweis; and Peter J.H. Jones
The evolution of the human diet over the past 10,000 years from a Paleolithic diet to our current modern pattern of intake has resulted in profound changes in feeding behavior. Shifts have occurred from diets high in fruits, vegetables, lean meats, and seafood to processed foods high in sodium and hydrogenated fats and low in fiber. These dietary changes have adversely affected dietary parameters known to be related to health, resulting in an increase in obesity and chronic disease, including cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes, and cancer. Some intervention trials using Paleolithic dietary patterns have shown promising results with favorable changes in CVD and diabetes risk factors. However, such benefits may be offset by disadvantages of the Paleolithic diet, which is low in vitamin D and calcium and high in fish potentially containing environmental toxins. More advantageous would be promotion of foods and food ingredients from our ancestral era that have been shown to possess health benefits in the form of functional foods. Many studies have investigated the health benefits of various functional food ingredients, including ω-3 fatty acids, polyphenols, fiber, and plant sterols. These bioactive compounds may help to prevent and reduce incidence of chronic diseases, which in turn could lead to health cost savings ranging from $2 to $3 billion per year as estimated by case studies using ω-3 and plant sterols as examples. Thus, public health benefits should result from promotion of the positive components of Paleolithic diets as functional foods. [emphasis added]
Alright, it’s god to see this sort of thing, and then of course there was the article in the Washington Post just a couple of days ago: Paleolithic diet is so easy, cavemen actually did it. There’s some saying somewhere that I can’t recall right now to look up, but it’s on the process of establishing truth and that at first it’s vehemently denied by everybody and in the end nobody even remembers the truth as not always having been the established truth or ever having been ridiculed by the sheeple. Well, if the pages and pages and pages of comments from absolute morons and idiots are any indication, then we’re right on track. As Mike Eades wrote when he retweeted my tweet yesterday: "Idiots by the dozens, morons by the score."
So, on the one hand, you’ve got no end of dumbasses in the WaPo comments who are merely exposing their ignorance — god or bad, I suppose, depending on your view (I think it’s good and I think it’s good that it’s being ridiculed just now). Yet on the other, supposed experts are still describing the Paleo diet in terms very few actual practitioners use (see emphasized bits, above). The nonsense "lean meats" just won’t die, I guess, even though even Cordain has finally recognized that saturated fat does not associate with adverse health. "Low in vitamin D?" Are they serious? This is a "disadvantage?" Who doesn’t know that ALL diets are low in vitamin D? Just like everyone else, you need to get some sun and just to be safe, supplement. And if you’re getting sufficient vitamin d and k2 via sunlight, supplementation and foods high in k2 like eggs, butter, liver and so on, calcium is not an issue.
So, I don’t know what I’d rather deal with or what’s actually a good sign and what’s not. I have this feeling that the morons and ignoramuses in the WaPo are beneficial and that mischaracterizations from experts as to what the diet is and spurious "disadvantages" are harmful.
What do you think?